Hi, I think this issue was discussed at length during ietf-interfaces work. The WG gave up on the ideal goal that an NMS can pick the interface name as if it were just another administrative string. Instead, every vendor can have their own rules for embedded semantics in the identifier. Every server can reject perfectly valid interface names because they are the "wrong" value for that specific port (where the "right" value is up to the NMS to know because it is out of scope for the standard).
It may take another decade to get rid of all the bad decisions CLI has given to network management. Andy On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On this point: > > On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > And > > should the interface reference not use a more specific type than > > 'string’? > >> Interface references can be many things, from standard naming we are > familiar, e.g. ge-1/0/0.1 to a numerical value like 13276. Leaving it as > string gives us most flexibility in that regards. > > I disagree that the goal here is most flexibility. We do have an > > interfaces data model in the IETF. Why are we avoiding to refer to it > > here? > > > > I think it would be helpful if you could be specific as to your > concern. It is absolutely the case that the SNMP folk did an awful lot > of work on managing interfaces. While I am not concerned about the form > of the name, I wonder if your concern is around some of the semantics, > but I can't tell. > > Eliot > > > > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
